Search Results

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Evanesce Scar Management System, a silicone elastomer sheeting intended for the topical management of hypertrophic and keloid scars. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than providing detailed studies with acceptance criteria and performance data for the new device itself.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or ground truth establishment.

Here's why and what information is present:

510(k) Summary: The purpose of a 510(k) is to demonstrate that the new device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device. This is primarily done through comparison of indications for use, technological characteristics, and safety and effectiveness information with the predicate.
Predicate Device: The document identifies "SCAR HEAL" (510(k) K971468) from Specialty Systems, Inc. as the predicate device.
Device Description and Intended Use: These are provided for the Evanesce Scar Management System, highlighting it as a sheet of soft, flexible, translucent silicone elastomer for over-the-counter topical treatment of hypertrophic and keloid scars.
FDA Letter: The FDA's letter confirms their review and finding of "substantial equivalence" to devices marketed prior to May 28, 1976, allowing the device to be marketed. This letter signifies regulatory clearance, but it does not detail specific performance studies of the Evanesce system.

To answer your request, if this were a document that contained such information, it would typically look like this (hypothetical example, NOT from the provided text):

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

Performance Metric	Acceptance Criteria	Reported Device Performance
Scar Volume Reduction	≥ 20% reduction in 8 weeks	25.3% reduction (p < 0.001)
Scar Softness Improvement	≥ 1.5-point increase on a 5-point scale	1.8-point increase (p < 0.05)
Adverse Events Rate	< 5% local irritation	3.2% (mild, self-resolving)
Patient Satisfaction	80% of patients report "satisfied" or "very satisfied"	88% reported satisfaction

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance

Test Set Sample Size: 150 patients
Data Provenance: Prospective, multi-center study conducted in the USA (clinical sites in California, Texas, New York) and Germany.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

Number of Experts: 3 independent plastic surgeons.
Qualifications: Each plastic surgeon had at least 15 years of experience in scar management and reconstructive surgery, board-certified in their respective countries (American Board of Plastic Surgery / German Board of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery).

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Adjudication Method: 2+1. If two experts agreed on a scar characteristic (e.g., Vancouver Scar Scale rating), that was accepted as ground truth. If all three disagreed or there was a split (e.g., 1-1-1), a fourth, senior plastic surgeon (with 20+ years experience) served as a tie-breaker.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed as this is a physical device (silicone sheeting) and not an AI or diagnostic imaging system involving human reader interpretation.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

Not applicable, as this is a physical medical device and does not involve an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

Ground Truth Type: Clinical assessment by expert plastic surgeons using validated scar assessment scales (e.g., Vancouver Scar Scale, Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale) and objective measurements (e.g., scar thickness via ultrasound, scar colorimetry). Patient-reported outcomes were also collected.

8. The sample size for the training set

Training set is not applicable for this type of physical device efficacy study. The study involved direct patient application and observation.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

Not applicable.

In summary, the provided 510(k) document is for regulatory clearance based on substantial equivalence, not a detailed clinical performance study as described in your request.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1